The For-Profit College Challenge By Ariel Sankar-Bergmann For-profit colleges have a different organizational structure than community colleges, public universities or non-profit private schools. The Higher Education Act of 1965 defines for-profit colleges as, Institutions that are privately owned or owned by a publicly traded company and whose net earnings can benefit a shareholder or individual. 1 In contrast non-profit and public institutions have a primary mission of education, not earning profits for shareholders. Although public and non-profit institutions must remain competitive to survive, success in attaining this goal does not bring personal profit to the board members. If for-profit colleges were providing students with an education that allowed them to leave school with more earning power, skills and the ability to be employed in the career they trained for, the financial incentives that structure the company would be unimportant, but that is not the case. Students at forprofit colleges go into deeper debt, have higher default rates, and often receive worse instruction than students at non-profit or public schools. This problem is made worse because for-profit schools have ensured that their institutions will face limited government scrutiny by expending considerable funds so that proposed government regulations to improve the quality of programs at for-profit institutions are enacted on a limited scale. Areas of Quality and Cost Concern at For-Profit Colleges The financial focus at for-profits is often not on using their revenue to improve the quality of instruction that is offered, but instead are spending an increasingly large share 1 Government Accountability Office. For-Profit Colleges Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encourage Fraud and Engage in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices. Washington Government Printing Offices, 2010. (Pg. 4).
of their budget on marketing. For example, in the 2010 report published by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, found that: The colleges studied had a total of 32,496 recruiters, compared with 3,512 careerservices staff members. Among the 30 companies, an average of 22.4 percent of revenue went to marketing and recruiting, 19.4 percent to profits and 17.7 percent to instruction. 2 While all colleges want to remain competitive and attract new students, the portion of funds that are directed towards marketing instead of student services at for-profit colleges is a troubling sign of the priorities of these companies. Many of the recent investigations into for-profit colleges, including the investigation by the Senate HELP Committee and an investigation by the Office of Government Accountability (GAO), have found that for-profit colleges demonstrate high drop out rates. Specifically the HELP investigation found that out of the 1,095,873 students enrolled in for-profit colleges: 298,476 students who enrolled in 2-year Associate degree programs in 2008-9, or 63 percent, departed without a degree. Nine companies had Associate degree programs with withdrawal rates over 60 percent. 3 Although there may be many factors that lead students to drop out, both the GAO report Experiences of Undercover Students Enrolled in Online Classes at Selected Colleges and the HELP report note that students were very dissatisfied with the education that they were receiving at for-profit colleges. During the GAO investigation, undercover GAO staff submitted subpar and often clearly plagiarized work to teachers at for-profit 2 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/education/harkin-report-condemns-for-profit-colleges.html 3 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success, Executive Summary. 112 th Cong. 2d sess., 2012, Washington Government Printing Office, 2012. (Pg. 5).
universities; however, the work was often given credit. For example: Our undercover student at College 10 took two classes in which she was awarded points for assignments that she did not complete, in violation of grading standards for the class. In one class, the student submitted only 2 of 3 required components of the final project, but received full credit for the assignment, resulting in an overall passing grade for the class. 4 Given the poor quality of instruction it is unlikely that students who attended these schools would gain the skills necessary to be successful in the work place. The high drop out rates and poor quality of education would be cause for concern at any educational institution; but, at for-profit colleges the steaks are often higher because the institutions carry a much higher price tag: For profit certificate programs cost, on average, four and a half times as much as a comparable program at a community college in the same area. Bachelor s programs averaged 20 percent more than analogous programs at flagship public universities. Associate degree programs also averaged four times the cost at traditional public college counterparts. 5 This high price tag means that students at for-profit institutions must take out significantly more loans than students attending public or non-profit institutions. Ninety-six percent of for profit students take out student loans In comparison, 13 percent of students at community colleges, 48 percent at 4-year public, and 57 percent at 4 year private non-profit colleges borrow to money to pay for school. 6 These statistics documenting high dropout rates, high costs, and excessive loans, help to amplify concern about the troubling findings of high default rates among students who 4 Government Accountability Office. Experiences of Undercover Students Enrolled in Online Classes at Selected Colleges. Washington Government Printing Offices, 2011. (Pg. 12). 5 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success, 112 th Cong. 2d sess., 2012, Washington Government Printing Office, 2012. (Pg. 41). 6 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success, 112 th Cong. 2d sess., 2012, Washington Government Printing Office, 2012. (Pg. 129).
attend for-profit schools. Even though students at for-profit schools make up only 10% 7 of the students taking out loans to pay for college, almost half of all student loan defaults nationwide are held by students who attended for-profit colleges. 8 If students are unsatisfied with the quality of education they are receiving, there is a greater chance that they will drop out; and, in the case of for-profits, if these students leave, they may be much more in debt than their fellow students at public and non-profit institutions. Even if students don t drop out, the poor quality of instruction at the schools may not lead to improved job opportunities. Lacking the improved skills and earning power, and facing high amounts of debt, many students are unable to prevent default. The Potential Benefits of For-Profit Colleges To say that for-profits colleges offer no value would be an exaggerated characterization of the industry. As noted above, for-profit colleges are marketed to non-traditional students. According to the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities: PSCUs [Private Sector Colleges and Universities] offer predominantly nontraditional students a means to improve their financial situation for themselves and their families. About a third of these students are single parents; over 60 percent women; over 40 percent African American or Hispanic/Latino; and 152,000 of them are veterans. 9 These groups are often underrepresented in traditional colleges and universities and part of this may be due to the structure of those schools. For-profits offer the option of a more flexible and career oriented program, for example, for-profit colleges have greatly 7 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/for-profit-colleges_n_853363.html?page=1 8 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success, 112 th Cong. 2d sess., 2012, Washington Government Printing Office, 2012. (Pg. 131) 9 http://www.career.org/imispublic/content/contentfolders/pressreleases/apscu-harkin-backgrounder- 072912.pdf
expanded the online education market: For- profit institutions have captured a share of the online education market disproportionate to their share of higher education overall (i.e., nearly 33% of online students versus 6% overall in 2004). 10 For many non-traditional students, the advantages of flexible and mobile classes outweigh the higher price tag. As a college degree grows in importance, for profit schools may fill an important gap in the current higher education market. Although for-profit institutions do fill a gap in the education market, the benefits that these institutions have do not outweigh the costs in most cases. By marketing their programs to non-traditional students, for-profits institutions are targeting students who may be less savvy about the world of higher education, and more likely to miss the predatory practices of some for-profit colleges. 11 The debt taken on by these students is then coupled with the poor instruction that many receive leaving those students without the necessary skills to find better jobs and in worse financial shape than when they began their educational career. Attempts to Regulate the Industry The for-profit college industry receives up to 90% of its revenue from the Federal Government, in the form of federal student loans. In response to industry growth and as complaints about the practices of for-profit colleges, in 2010 the Obama Administration vowed to crack down on industry. This crack down has come both from the Department 10 Gallagher, Sean. Scale and Growth in Online Education-Career Colleges Leading the Way. 2005. Eduventures, Inc. 11 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success, 112 th Cong. 2d sess., 2012, Washington Government Printing Office, 2012.(Pg. 68).
of Education and from members of Congress have taken action to protect students and to protect federal dollars. Two of the principle steps that have been taken are the Gainful Employment regulations and the Protecting Our Students, Protecting Our Taxpayers Act. Gainful Employment The Gainful Employment regulations are a set of regulations created by the Department of Education to assess whether students at for-profit institutions can become gainfully employed after attending for-profit institutions and whether those students were able to repay their debt. The current regulations have three provisions: To stay eligible for federal financial aid, each program will have to meet one of the three benchmarks: a federal student loan repayment rate of at least 35 percent, a debt-to-income ration of less than 12 percent or a debt-to-discretionary-income ratio of less than 30 percent. 12 By examining whether students are able to successfully repay their loans or by examining the percent of students incomes that must go to paying loans, the Department of Education has an effective proxy for whether the value of the degree was worth the cost. If the majority of students are unable to repay their loans or their loans constitute an overly burdensome expense in proportion to their income, the assumption is that the degree is not giving the student sufficient earning power to be worth the cost. Protecting Our Students Protecting Our Taxpayer Act In addition to the Gainful Employment regulations developed by the Department of Education, Senator Durbin of Illinois sponsored the bill, Protecting Our Students Protecting Our Taxpayer Act, which seeks to regulate the methods that for-profit colleges use to recruit veterans. For-profits can have up to 90% of their revenue come from Title IV funds (federal student loans) and the other 10% must come from other sources. In 12 http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/03/list_looking_at_gainful_employment_changes
Revenue derived from the tuition of members of the military does not count towards this 90%, leading to concern that for-profit colleges may be deliberately targeting military members in order to fill the 10% funding gap. The Protecting Our Students and Protecting Our Taxpayers Act would change the portion of revenue coming from federal monies to 85%, with the hope that this might curb some of the marketing aimed at veterans. 13 The For-Profit Response to Regulation While both of these laws are important steps that could provide more protection to students, laws of this nature, in particular the Gainful Employment regulations have faced an uphill battle because of the extensive lobbying efforts of the for-profit colleges. In 2010 the for-profit college industry spent 8.1 million dollars on a bipartisan lobbying effort, with democrats receiving almost twice as much in contributions as republicans. 14 Corporations have a long history of lobbying Washington to try and ensure that regulations that are being enacted won t cripple the work in which they are engaged. The Gainful Employment regulations posed a significant threat to for-profit companies profits. If companies weren t able to meet the benchmarks that were defined in the rules, then for-profit colleges would loose their eligibility to receive Title IV funds, which, as mentioned previously, can account for 90% of the revenue earned by these companies. Faced with the possibility of losing their primary source of revenue, for-profit colleges engaged in a successful lobbying effort, which weakened the Gainful Employment regulation, and which officials at the Department of Education described as 13 http://durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?id=822b7e10-9a3b-488b-818f-a8cdbf350928 14 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/for-profit-colleges_n_853363.html?page=1
unusual even by Washington standards. 15 Before Gainful Employment was proposed the for-profit industry spent 3.3 million dollars on lobbying, in 2009 that number increased to 8.1 million, 16 and according to the Sunlight foundation that number increased to 12.5 million in 2011. While some companies generally give contributions to members of one party this has not been the case with for-profit industries. For-profit colleges have funneled their money to those in positions of greatest power regardless of their ideology. Not surprisingly, companies in the industry have targeted congressional candidates who serve on education committees and tend to give to both the Republican and Democratic nominees in presidential election years. This technique has expanded the lobbying power of for-profit colleges. They do not have to rely on one party versus the other party but instead are able to build powerful bipartisan coalitions to support legislation that will favor their companies. Because the Obama administration had made clear statements about their plans to regulate the industry, for-profit companies ensured their success by hiring lobbyists with close ties to the administration. For example, the lobbyists who approached members of the current administration included, Richard A. Gephardt, the former House majority leader; John Breaux, the former Louisiana senator; and Tony Podesta, whose brother, John, ran Mr. Obama s transition team. 17 This team of lobbyists was able to effectively create dissent from inside the Democratic Party. The dissent, however, is not limited to Democrats. Republican members of both 15 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/us/politics/for-profit-college-rules-scaled-back-afterlobbying.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all 16 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/for-profit-colleges_n_853363.html?page=1 17 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/us/politics/for-profit-college-rules-scaled-back-afterlobbying.html?pagewanted=all
the House and the Senate were given substantial donations as well. For example: Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee, received more than $40,000 in campaign contributions during the last election cycle. His political action committee, the Freedom & Security PAC, received an additional $35,000. 18 Kline and other members of congress worked to block the Gainful Employment regulations from being enacted, and although they were unsuccessful in their congressional fight, many of the members who worked to stop Gainful Employment were also the members who received the highest contributions. 19 In addition to giving sizable donations to many members of Congress, the forprofit industry engaged in a high-pressure lobbying campaign using both students and staff from for-profit colleges. Students at for-profit colleges were asked to engage in a hill lobbying day that was organized by the Association for Private Sector Colleges and Universities. During that day students were given talking points to use should the press approach them. Because of the increasingly negative press surrounding the high default rates that students at these universities experience, many of the talking points focused on how to respond to questions addressing that topic: Should a reporter ask if or how much debt you incurred at a career institution, you can firmly but politely reply: I made an adult decision to invest in my education, and I am confident in my ability to meet my financial responsibilities 20 By incorporating students into the lobbying campaign, for-profit colleges were able to develop a different narrative than one of debt and failure and cast doubt on whether 18 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/for-profit-colleges_n_853363.html?page=4 19 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/for-profit-colleges_n_853363.html?page=2 20 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/for-profit colleges_n_853363.html?page=3
eliminating many of these schools would be beneficial for these students. Finally, because the industry is a large employer, employees were encouraged to lobby congress as well. An employee at Herzing University sent in a comment on the proposed legislation that included a letter for the University president stating: If you have not already you need to make a comment/letter through this web site E-mail me to confirm that you entered a comment - we (are) counting our total comments. Receiving emails such as these could have the effect of drastically skewing the picture of support for the industry because many employees may have felt they had no other choice but to lobby against the regulations. Undoubtedly everyone in the United States deserves access to higher education, but providing a career-focused education to students should not put these students at risk of having a poor education. The for-profit college industry has in many cases not been able to prove that they are able to provide a good education. It may not be possible or even appropriate to eliminate the industry; but, if it is to continue to exist, the Department of Education should place stringent requirements on the for-profit industry to ensure that students who attend these schools are getting the education they deserve.